P.S. I don't ignore UG though. He really makes me giggle. ;)

I've been Cellardwelling since July of 2002, and despite the desire of some to dismiss me as a nutty toolbox, Lumberjim has never felt that urge in all that time... in the political sandbox or out.

UT has bitched at me -- actually bitched -- exactly once.

I suppose it's incumbent on me to point out to some folks who don't get it and don't want to, that there is a difference between being annoying and being crazy. I have values that many of my opponents never attained to, and hesitate to take up...:eyebrow:

ETA: as for whether Spexx is learning anything from this thread, read the bottom end of p. 25 and draw your own conclusions. I have.

What inconsistency Shaw? Who is held accountable for things others aren't, and how?

The comment seemed to me to be consistent with the tone and content of the original post.

Parse it however the ƒuck you want, Shaw, you, in YOUR OWN WORDS, stated that you thought the problem is of how "others are held accountable" and in saying "others" you abso-ƒucking-lutely have stated that you believe this is a problem of "groups" or "group identities" and NOT simply "inconsistencies" as you have back-peddled your position to. And HOW the ƒuck is anybody not "free" to do whatever the hell they want? Where is the Cellar police that only let certain people say certain things? Anybody at all is free to be a crybaby, I am free to call them on it, and you are free to disagree with me, and I am free to tell you to take a flying leap. There is absolute freedom and equality here. You are suggesting some kind of injustice that doesn't exist.

Shaw...ya know, if the tables had been turned on that interaction, do you suppose that Spex would have been called out for his snarky comment via this thread? I do. So I totally get your comment on inconstancies. Lookouts comment was snarky and not conducive to civil discussion. It only begged for more snarkiness.

This is why I think Bruce is smart.

I've no reason to believe that way either.

Personally -- in a couple of senses -- I figure both tw and Redux are single.

So, does this mean that we should join a Snark hunting club, that we should hunt Snark with a club; or, both?

Oh my word.

I suggest you take it up with those who are calling for change, and who keep getting mad at the politics threads. I don't care.

I don't even fucking care enough to use a fucking fucked up f. :lol:

Maybe that means somebody will finally do something constructive with that friggin' loose bowsprit, Sexobon.

Not just ". . .kept looking the opposite way/And appeared unaccountably shy."

Tangential to F, I wonder what fonts can deliver the long-S?

The rule should be, anyone can make a snark, but no one can respond directly to a snark. Each snark must stand on its own merits, and each man has the responsibility to decide for himself whether it was funny or unwarranted. Lobbyists must remain 100 feet back from the snarking station.

PUT THAT LAUNDRY AWAY. The rule should be no crybaby bullcrap.

I'm certainly not discounting your opinion here...I just don't see that at all! And I certainly don't see how the subsequent comment got the crybaby comment.

Eh, I'm the snarker and the snarkee, in turns.

But, I thought others have been unhappy with how things were going?

So, to snark or not to snark. That is the question.

I AM WOMAN. HEAR ME SNARK.

Snark-a-doodle dooooo!

(This is all meant to be humorous.)

http://www.cellar.org/showthread.php...918#post667918

Because, rather than keep it light and funny, somebody CHOSE to cry out "MOMMY, MOMMY, THE BULLY IS TEASING ME--SEE WHAT HE DID THERE?!" Sure sounds like a ƒucking crybaby to me. Was there some other way I could have read that?

I dont shut up I grow up
And when I see you I throw up.

:lol:

ALL he said was "well there's some respectful discussion" after the entire brouhaha about respectful discussion. :confused:

Ugh...you're maddening, my friend. I like you and your style a LOT...but you're maddening. ;)

I will madden your vagina.